There've been plenty of dictatorships in the Americas, and plenty of places ruled by European monarchs. What, however, was the last North or South American state (and not merely a tribe or collection of tribes) that was ruled by a locally resident monarch?

I have a guess as to the answer in the comments, but I'm not positive that I'm right.

UPDATE: Whoops, at first omitted the italicized "locally resident." I am not looking for the "plenty of places ruled by European monarchs" (in the sense of those who live in Europe) but rather for an American country ruled by a monarch who sits within that country (regardless of where he was born).

Depending on whether this question encompasses rule from afar there are a few other possibilities. Cuba was ruled by the Spanish King until 1898. The Virgin Islands were ruled by the Danish King until 1917. Were these states under your meaning?

Two countries on the South American mainland were monarchies until the seventies. Guyana (formerly British Guiana)was not decolonised until 1966. Its neighbour Surinam (formerly Dutch Guiana) also beats the previous suggestions with decolonisation, still under the crown, in 1954. Dutch Queen ceased to be head of state there in 1975, making it five years later than Guyana in formally becoming a republic.

Judging from his post, in which he notes that many places in the Americas have been ruled by European monarchs, I think Eugene was likely asking about indigenous monarchies, i.e., states that established monarchies independent of any european rule. Canada, Cuba, the Virgin Islands, Surinam, and Guyana would all be out. Brazil would still be in.

As others have said Canada is a monarchy. There are also Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Greneda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and St Kitts and Nevis which are monarchies.

They also cannot properly be called places ruled by a European monarch anymore. Elizabeth II is queen of those realms separately from being queen of the United Kingdom.

I would think that all these countries where QEII is head of state would qualify. After all, that is her position back in the U.K., with Tony Blair being head of government. These functions have been separated for quite awhile now over there, and it seems to work reasonably well. Indeed, I have seen suggestions that we might do better if we had separated them, maybe more in the French model of a president and a prime minister.

The thing is the Emperors of Brazil were imports, princes from the Portugese royal family, just like the short lived Hapsburg empire of Mexico. So if we restrict ourselves to indigenous royalty probably the last native king was Tupac Amaru I (d. 1572), the last Inca, unless you count Tupac Amaru II (a descendant who lead a short uprising and died in 1781). If we allow Europeans then obviously the Queen is still queen of Canada, etc.

If we include a military monarch, then it has to be Fidel Castro. Who else has held his country in his tight grip for so long? His counterparts in South America come and go, and I believe that's because citizens in those countries have become more enlightened. After Castro, absolutely monarchy will be but painful memory.

Does the Danish monarch rule, or just reign? There is a difference, and Eugene used the word "rule". To me, that requires some degree of direct political power, not just being a revered living symbol. I do not know for sure about Denmark, but England is ruled by Parliament and the Prime Minister.

OTOH, Canada and the British possessions may count here, depending on whether Queen Victoria ruled or not.

I believe that the remnant of the Inca empire, which the Spainards maintained diplomatic relations with, was the last part of Latin America not ruled by the Spainish. I'm no expert on this however, but I think they were the last hold-outs.

To me, that requires some degree of direct political power, not just being a revered living symbol. I do not know for sure about Denmark, but England is ruled by Parliament and the Prime Minister.

The question of the Queen's power is a very interesting one. On paper, she still has almost absolute power (e.g., Parliament cannot meet until she officially opens it and she is commander in chief of the military, titular head of the Church of England). But of course if she ever tried to exercise the theoretical power she holds, she would be deposed in a heartbeat and would have to get a real job. Most of the other European countries that still retain their monarchies have completely removed them from legal power at all, not so in England.

I think the definition of King is too much of a gray area. Indigenous American peoples had chiefs which certainly retain all or some of the powers that the European monarchies retained. With that said, there are still 100's, if not 1000's, of chiefs in america.

As i read it, the question was locally resident king, not necessarily locally born king. thus, i think Maximilian would count, and so would the portugese monarchs who lived in Brazil and ruled. I can't think of a monarchy on the North or South American continent after 1889, so i'm going to go with the Professor on this one.

The question of the Queen's power is a very interesting one. On paper, she still has almost absolute power (e.g., Parliament cannot meet until she officially opens it and she is commander in chief of the military, titular head of the Church of England). But of course if she ever tried to exercise the theoretical power she holds, she would be deposed in a heartbeat and would have to get a real job. Most of the other European countries that still retain their monarchies have completely removed them from legal power at all, not so in England.

This kind of system is pretty useful in a country that doesn't have the formal constitutional restraints on the power of government than the United States has. For example, if a Prime Minister decides he's tired of elections and declares he's decided not to call anymore elections and to change all his stationery to say "Prime Minister for Life" it's not at all certain that the Queen at that point would be unable to dissolve Parliament and call an election without being deposed. No one knows how that scenario would turn out and that uncertainty is a useful thing for keeping Prime Ministers from going completely nuts.

Prime Minister for Life doesn't really have a "ring" to it; "Perpetual Prime Minister" on the other hand ... (taking a cue from Diaz, the "Presidente Perpetual" of Mexico).

Also, the best answer so far has to be Brazil. A close reading of the question indicates chiefs of indian tribes are out, as are monarchs residing in Europe or elsewhere beyond the Americas, e.g. Queen Elizabeth. It does not, however, exclude monarchs of European descent residing in the Americas, e.g. Emporer Maximillian. When answering a law-prof's question, always "read the question!" first, especially come finals time.

What is hard about "locally resident?" I am trying to visualize Christian or Frederick number whatever sitting on his throne in Greenland. The Emperor of Brazil(though born in Portugal) was locally resident and no longer ruler of Portugal. Brazil it is.

It has been quite awhile since a king or queen realy ruled in much the world. Rather, the mostly reign as head of state. The queen in Hawaii, as I understand her, was probably in the middle.

The problem I see is that this transition is often not abrupt. In England, the process of devolution of power probably began when Black John Lackland met with his barons at Runnymede, and continues to the present day. Of QEII's predecessors, QEI was still probably "ruling", whereas Victoria was mostly reigning, and the present monarch has even less actual power.

The transition to constitutional monarchy began with the slow motion overthrow of feudalism in the 16th and 17th century in the Netherlands and Britain. Anne, the last of the Stuarts, and therefore the last monarch whose claim to the throne rested on ancestry more than parliamentary mandate, was also the last British monarch to exercise the veto. William IV reluctantly cooperated in Lord Grey's threat to create a Whig majority in the House of Lords in order to force passage of the Reform Act of 1832. That was the last exercise of authority for an important political end that I know of.

But, monarchs in other countries continued to exercise political power. Wilhelm II exercised his considerable authority in the German Empire for political ends right to the end of the first World War. Ditto for the Russian Czar and the Hapsburg monarch. But, then the first World War was the end of feudalism for much of central and eastern Europe.

The new world never really had feudalism, per se, although there were some attempts to institute something like it in colonial regimes, including the Dutch manorial system in New York, as well as various Spanish schemes.

Unless, there was some obscure claim of monarchical status in a minor country, I would think Brazil's emperor was the last to meet the Professor's criteria.

There are certainly several problems with definition of terms here, Eugene. While not an absolute, in modern usage, a monarch is considered a hereditary ruler. While Bashar al-Asad's official title is President of Syria, few would argue that he is not a hereditary ruler. Further, it does not matter that a monarch achieves power by inheritance; few would argue that William I did not become monarch of England in 1066. As it is generally agreed that Raoul Castro is heir apparent to brother Fidel, it would follow that Fidel is monarch over Cuba.

Further, there seems to be some confusion amongst the readers as to the status of Greenland. While it was integrated into Denmark with the new constitution of 1953, it was granted self-rule in 1979. Margrethe II status with respect to Greenland is similar to Elizabeth II's to Canada.

Well, this thread has been up for almost twelve hours and no one has said it yet, so I will--how about King George II of the United States. Appointed by the Supreme Court in 2001 and retained by Diebold in 2004.

Well, this thread has been up for almost twelve hours and no one has said it yet, so I will--how about King George II of the United States. Appointed by the Supreme Court in 2001 and retained by Diebold in 2004.

Neverland, ruled by the King of Pop.
Graceland, ruled by the King of Rock 'n Roll.
Broadway, ruled by the Prince of Players.
Cleavage, ruled by the Queen of brassieres, Selma Koch, NYC.
King of America, Elvis Costello.
King of Kansas City, Roger Miller.
Queen of the Blues, Koko Taylor.
Queen of the Night, Whitney Houston.
Queen of Disco, Donna Summer.
Fats Domino, KING OF RHYTHM AND BLUES

If Hawai'i is counted as part of North America, then Queen Lili'uokali would beat the last Brazilian emperor. The Kingdom of Hawai'i had diplomatic relations with many states in Europe and elsewhere, and was not "merely a tribe".

One might consider James Jesse Strang who was the first and only king in what is the United States. He was king of Beaver Island in Lake Michigan and his Mormon followers from 1850 to June 20, 1856 when he was assasinated.

From time to time, in libertarian circles, I hear or read about something called "individual sovereignty." I imperfectly understand the concept at best and I'm plenty suspicious of it, but it seems to involve some form of citizenship renunciation and an assertion that the individual "belongs" only to himself. Would such an individual supposedly count as a sovereign monarch over his own property (assuming he has any)?

In 1847 James Strang set up a colony for his followers, dissenters from the main body of Mormonism. Strang crowned himself "King James" in 1850. Hatred of the sect by non-Mormons led to the Battle of Pine River in 1853 at present-day Charlevoix. On June 16, 1856, because they hated his authoritarian rule, some of Strang's subjects mortally wounded him. Later in the summer mainlanders drove the Mormons from Beaver Island.

After Katrina, some guy who was upset with the hurricane relief effort here in New Orleans, seceded from the U.S. and declared that his house and property in Uptown New Orleans was a sovereign nation. I don't know what title he decided upon for himself. (I think he was a lawyer.)

Just wanted to acknowledge the error: Greenland should be considered North American; I got my childhood "largest islands" and continents lists mixed up. Point about the location of the Danish monarchs stands.

Emperor Norton I of course!
He was the self declared "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" from 1859-1880. Now sure he didn't have any official royal crown or throne or light saber, but clothes do not an emperor make. He had the love of the people of San Francisco and he repeatedly ordered Congress to be dissolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton_I

Obvously the correct answer depends on determining the original intent of the questioner. As best I understand, in full form it would read: Who was the last monarch (a) of a sovereign state in the Americas who (b) did not hold the position by virtue of being part of or immediately succeeded from a European ruling family?

Thus phrased, Faustin Soulouque of Haiti, who assumed the titl of Emperor Faustin I in 1849 and ruled the country with extreme severity for the next decade. He also created a vast peerage, which no one ever seems to discuss.

How about Abraham Lincoln. He ruled America like an absolute monarch. Same with FDR and LBJ. What about the Samozas in Nicaragua or Pinochet in Chile? Were they considered monarchs or just brutal American puppets?

Folks: Just to be clear, my post specifically distinguishes dictatorships, of which there have been plenty, from monarchies, which is what I'm looking for. Yes, it's a formalistic distinction; but the purpose of this post is to look for a fun little historical tidbit, not to score political points, or to bemoan the general lack of democracy in various parts of the Americans over the decades.

Indeed, I have seen suggestions that we might do better if we had separated them, maybe more in the French model of a president and a prime minister.

I read an interesting article or book a few years ago (unfortunately, I can't remember the author or title) that proposed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ought to serve as head of state, leaving the president to be head of government.

I think this is a fascinating suggestion. Arguably it would make our presidential campaigns focus more on substantive issues and less on the appropriateness of Al and Tipper's public display of affection at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Clinton's preferences as to boxers versus briefs, Kerry's enjoyment of fried twinkies, etc. (Then again, politics wouldn't be half as interesting without those kinds of distractions...)

Samuel Huntington also argues quite persuasively in POLITICAL ORDER IN CHANGING SOCIETIES that "differentiation of structures" (and if memory serves, he proffered the division between head of state and head of government as an example) as characteristic of advanced polities.

Who is the only monarch represented in the Hall of States in the US Capitol? Answer below.

(Each state gets two statues of anyone they choose to represent that state)
While you are thinking, the District of Columbia is NOT a state, although we have been angling for that for some time. But now I'm hearing that we might be entitled to a statute in the hall, and they are asking residents for suggestions. Which I think is a bad thing to do, as people tend to vote for people they know, ignoring historical figures.

The essential difference between a dictator and a monarch is whether it's hereditary. See here and here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear that Baby Doc Duvalier was a monarch; he assumed power in Haiti at the age of nineteen when his father (Papa Doc) died. So, do I win a prize now, or something?

Randy R. writes about kings in the Hall of States in the U.S. Capitol Building and then notes that D.C. "might be entitled to a statute in the hall, and they are asking residents for suggestions," but he does not note that one of the best suggestions for a D.C. statute is a man who is true American royalty: Duke Ellington.

Aside: Some years ago, when I was living in the D.C. area, someone asked me, quite rudely, what I thought of Edward Kennedy. Some days later I realized that, instead of the straightforward answer that I gave, I should have said, "Edward Kennedy Ellington. That cat was it!"

(One could make a claim for USS SAINT LOUIS (CL49), a BROOKLYN-class light cruiser, since the name derives from King Louis IX of France, made a saint for his crusading zeal. But if we count that, then we get into nonsense like the protest against naming an attack submarine CORPUS CHRISTI. BTW, according to Wikipedia, a portrait of Louis IX hangs in the chamber of the US House of Representatives. Creeping monarchism everywhere!)

Now, for a real bonus: who was the last child of a royal house born in the Americas?

Ans: Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, younger sister of Queen Beatrix, born in 1943 in Ottawa, Canada, where then-Crown Princess Juliana and her children were in exile.

Ah, but Mr. Rostrom, the Canadian government designated that entire floor of the hospital to be Dutch territory, like unto an embassy, because of a Dutch law requiring inheritors of the throne to actually be born in Holland.

But then, that would mean that Margriet was born on Dutch soil in North America, so you're still right.

Andrew Hyman: As I demonstrated here, your concept of heredity is in error, as it does not allow for dynastic patriarchs.

Harry Edgar: Your other citations are considered pretenders to the throne, and are invalid. Queen Liliuokalani was the last true monarch of Hawaii. But this is trivial, as I have shown here, Hawaii is by definition not part of North America.

Eugene, It would appear that your distinction is inadequate, as the sets are not exclusive. Within autocracies, ALL monarchs are dictators. However, a dictator is not necessarily a monarch. :)

I submit for your consideration the wife of one Sammy Kershaw, who upon yielding her heart to Mr. Kershaw was named Queen of his Double-Wide Trailer. It is unclear whether she surrendured this title upon leaving Mr. Kershaw in favor of Earl, The Charlie Daniels of the Torque Wrench.

I'm puzzled. Why don't you think Baby Doc was a monarch? Must a monarch wear a crown and have a throne? If we're looking for incidentals like that, then it should be noted that everyone in Haiti referred to Baby Doc's abode as a "palace."

You cite three examples that you suggest are evidence that Baby Doc wasn't a monarch: Assad of Syria, William I of England, and Castro of Cuba.

Regarding Castro, he is not commonly understood to be a "monarch," nor should he be. No child of his is in line to succeed him, nor did he succeed a parent. If indeed Raoul Castro is in line to succeed Fidel, then what does that prove? Raoul Castro would not be a hereditary leader, as he is a brother rather than a child of Fidel. Moreover, Fidel does have children, including five sons, and none of them are in line to succeed him.

It's commonly understood that heredity means:

1. Descended, or capable of descending, from an ancestor to an heir at law; received or passing by inheritance, or that must pass by inheritance; as, an hereditary estate or crown.

2. Transmitted, or capable of being transmitted, as a constitutional quality or condition from a parent to a child; as, hereditary pride, bravery, disease.

Regarding William the Conqueror, was not his son William Rufus, King of England? Was not his other son Henry Beauclerc, also King of England? Of course William I was a monarch, just like the Duvaliers. Although William I did not inherit the monarchy, he certainly did pass it along to his children.

And regarding the Assads, the question is whether either Hafez or Bashar qualify as "monarchs." I'd say that they do, assuming that Bashar is really in control in Syria. The status of Bashar Assad does not seem significantly different from that of Jordan's King Abdullah. Why not call them both monarchs?